Should Europe try to save the Iran nuclear deal?

Donald Trump is (according to Donald Trump) the master of the deal. Yet, as the world waits to see if Trump can strike a deal at the US-North Korea summit next week (12 June), another important nuclear deal is on the verge of collapse. In May 2018, the US decided to withdraw from the Iran deal, which Trump famously called “the single worst deal I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody”.

Europe has been scrambling to save the deal but, despite political assurances, European companies have reportedly been withdrawing from the country. Should more be done to reassure companies that have invested in Iran, or to counteract US sanctions? Or should Europe give up the Iran nuclear deal as dead?

The Iran deal will be one of the many security issues discussed on Debating Security Plus (DS+). In June, our sister think-tank, Friends of Europe, is gearing up to run a global online brainstorm designed to find solutions to today’s security challenges. From 19 June, 09:00 CEST to 20 June 20:00 CEST, the international security community will debate challenges and policy solutions. The discussions will be moderated by leading international think-tanks and organisations that will steer discussions towards concrete recommendations.

Curious to know more about the Iran nuclear deal? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

So, should Europe try to save the Iran nuclear deal? To get an answer, we spoke to Michael Oren, a member of Israel’s Knesset, deputy minister, and former ambassador to the United States. Did he think Europe should try to save the Iran deal?

It should not. Europe should change the Iran deal entirely and substitute it with a new deal that: prohibits Iran from enriching uranium, under any circumstances, as long as the current regime remains in power; that prohibits Iran from developing inter-continental ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads; that prohibits Iran from supporting terror worldwide and trying to conquer the Middle East. Europe should support a deal that addresses comprehensively the multifaceted Iranian threat.

We also spoke to Dr. Mitchell Belfer, President of the Euro-Gulf Information Centre (EGIC) in Italy, to hear his thoughts. Did he think the deal with Iran was worth saving?

Actually, the short answer is: no. I don’t think that Europe should be trying to save the Iran deal, at least not in its present form. The deal does not go as far as it should have in terms of extending the breakout period for Iran [ed: the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon].

I think it’s also very problematic in terms of the transatlantic relationship that they’ve taken such a different approach than the United States. That’s not to say that the US is infallible when it makes policies, especially under the Donald Trump administration, but there should have been a stronger effort amongst European decision-makers to reach an accord with the US before going into a deeper relationship with Iran at the expense of their relationship with the Trump administration. Also, perhaps I could remind people that the Trump administration, for better or worse, represents the United States, and it’s the US that we’re looking to ensure our relationship with, not necessarily any particular government.

We also put the same question to Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director for the International Crisis Group. Should Europe try to rescue the Iran nuclear deal?

Absolutely. Europe should do so not because it has economic interests in Iran, which are quite negligible, but because it is in its own security interest. Without the nuclear deal, Iran will either obtain a nuclear bomb or will be bombed. Both of these outcomes will adversely affect Europe, who will feel the impact through more refugee flows and radicalisation.

This was exactly the fear articulated by one of our readers, Cristina, who is deeply worried about the possibility of military intervention in Iran along the same lines as Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq. If we scrap the diplomatic approach, doesn’t it mean war is more likely?

How would Michael Oren respond?

I think, unlike perhaps Afghanistan, Iran is a movie that’s coming to your neighbourhood. Iran, again, is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and its operations are global. Iran succeeded in militarising Syria, it succeeds if it completes its encirclement of the Middle East, it will weaken Europe’s allies in the Middle East, and Israel and Europe’s allies in the Middle East are what’s guarding Europe’s eastern flank. If we’re not here, Europe would be in very severe danger indeed. There is no going home here and Europe has – I would say – a paramount interest in stopping the Iranian threat on multiple fronts

What would Mitchell Belfer from the Euro-Gulf Information Centre say to Cristina?

[The Iranian deal] sought to empower civil society through sanctions relief in return for the dismantling of the nuclear programme. What’s ended up happening, however, is that the Iranian state has managed to take the money that was supposed to empower civil society and has simply spent it on foreign interventionism. If you look on paper, the level of Iran’s involvement in conflicts like Syria and Yemen has increased tremendously since the revolutionary guard has had so much more money, because ultimately they control the economy of Iran.

So, Cristina, I think it’s a very important point you raise. We do need to look at a negotiated settlement for this issue, but it has to include things other than just the dismantling of the nuclear programme. It has to be a more comprehensive arrangement in which the revolutionary guard doesn’t then take money and increase its involvement in conventional wars… Because, ultimately, we don’t want contagion in the region. We want to stop the wars in Syria, calm down the situation in Yemen, not to mention the brewing conflicts involving Iran in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. So, what we’ll need to do, as an international community, is to not only stop Iran from building weapons of mass destruction, but also to tie sanctions relief and forgiveness to an accord that Iran will not be irresponsible in its engagement with other actors, like the Houthi militias, or the newfound militias that are popping up in the Arab Gulf region.

Finally, what would Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group say to the same comment?

If we have learned one lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that wars in that region often produce bigger monsters than the ones they aimed at neutralising. The objective of the nuclear deal with Iran was to address one area of disagreement between Iran and the West diplomatically, which could open the door for further diplomacy. If the deal collapses, we would be left with no option other than confrontation.

Should Europe try to save the Iran nuclear deal? Is the deal the best way to prevent a war in the region? Or has it perversely destabilised the region by empowering Iran financially? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

There is no evidence lol. Only Israels word and that is proff of nothing when it comes it Iran, even the U.N. inspections, the ones on the ground in Iran state they’ve violated nothing. They just don’t like the deal as they feel it’s not hard enough, that’s it.

Threat of force didn’t work for 40 years instead they got to 20 000 centrifuges very quickly and the US can’t invade iran just like they couldn’t in 40 years and now they are trillions in debt their position is even worse.

But it never occurred to me any time Israel has ever started any form of violence, instead, they do all they can to protect and defend themselves. Violence do not resolve issues, it only aggregates issues the more causing more losses and instabilities to both Israelis and the Palestinians.

What about Saudi Arabia, they also sponsor mass terrorism and we do business with them

randomguy2018June 5th, 2018

Europe its time to grow up.
You arent USA or Israel. Get your own policy. Iran is not a threat.
They have no nukes, they cant hurt Europe. Its only a tiny nation which ignores all international laws that seems worried about Iran.

Outside the Angloworld no one supports Israel.
Thats because Anglo elites love Middle East. They have always been in love with oil from Arabs or Israel for imperialism/having a foothold in the area. You also have their weird restortationist “Christian” idea.

“The term “restorationism” can also include the belief that the Jewish people must be restored to the promised land in fulfillment of biblical prophecy before the Second Coming of Christ.[15]:3 Christian restorationism is generally used to describe the 19th century movement based on this belief, though the term Christian Zionism is more commonly used to describe later forms.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

(The vast majority of Christianity rejects this idea, lets not forget that Israel needs to be stopped so Iran and other regional powers need to provide a counterbalance in the region).

They hoped the deal would stop Iran’s behaviour about their hate for Americans and Israelites.
Instead they surrounding Israel with their hate and poisoned religion.
So yes , Europe can’t support that either.
Get out , there will be a war.

Odd question. Iran abides by the agreement. You have anright to question outside influence in a region but then the scope of your attention nshould be far broader.

Beyond the question, we as Europeans should and hopefully shall, fight…yes fight outside influence from externals and stick with our values, morals and above all, our agreements. We have to be viewed as the sane ones.

Islamic countries that make religion the state policy and that as a result practice discrimination must never ever be allowed to get nuclear weapons. You can put Saudi Arabia on that list, sadly Pakistan already has the nukes but they should have been sanctioned to get them to give up their nukes.

Iran has had 10 years to learn how US soldiers fight in Iraq and to learn from this. It will be a massive war. Ofcourse the USA and it’s allies will prevail but there will be a cost in blood.

If your direction on thismatter must be followed, then, any state of any religion must follow that same rule. Israel is Zionist and a Jewish State. Pakistan is similar to Iran and Moslem. The UK is a Christian State. France is a Christian State. Russia is Russian Orthodox, which is a form of Christianity. And so on they go.

I am not following your gist. Equality is supposed to be the rule. No?

Surely, those with their finger on the nuclear button should be certified as sane ‘before’ they can be seen as acceptable in that position. Which today, would leave numerous world leaders lacking in suitable character for this very dangerous position.

Why You not ask Prime Minister to UK, what she will do, when UK go out from EU after Brexit, and when EU not save that Iran nuclear deal ? UK companies invest a lot of money already – “no deal” means that UK companies losse, a lot of money. UK want Brexit, so they want to be alone. If EU leave UK alone in that deal or after that for UK situation can be very bad – You can ask financial minister to UK ;) What I do, is to do not support Iran nuclear deal, and to help to UK to refund how much money is possible from that deal. In that way EU can support UK, because UK is a part from EU family and EU can forgive to UK for Brexit. UK is not alone! EU have responsibility to keep peace and human life in Iran don’t have matter deal ! People are important !

@Venko
The EU is not part of the EU family – the EU is a prison superstate, run by corrupt technocrats.
The UK will suffer in the short run financially but in the long run and indeed post-Brexit from the off, the UK will be free as the EU stumbles from crisis to corruption, to illiberality, strife and stagnation.

The US is far away from Europe, Iran nuclear deal is made for European security not to sustain US hegemony. For the peace and security of Europe, Iran nuclear deal has to save and secure. If Europe is afraid of sanction from the US, Europe can threaten to abandon the use of US dollar in Europe and Iran trade. Europe has to stand firm and strengthen solidarity. This is the only way to resist a superpower leading by a crazy, irrational, ignorant and opportunist and gambler president.

The Iran Nuclear Deal is a collective effort of the international society. When the superpower leading by an irrational and irresponsible man who has been continuously denying all previous effort of the whole world, Europe has to use collective effort to tame him.

Europe must choose between a secure economy or one’s economic security.
Maintaining a nuclear deal will endanger the European economy in its dealings with America, and the destruction of the agreement will have an impact on European economic security.
Europe knows well that the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely to be able to exchange 70 percent of the world’s energy, and this would be a huge risk to Europe’s withdrawal from the agreement.

What deal ? Iran broke the terms of it before the ink was dry. It was never anything more than an Obama vanity project & Brussels is delusional enough to think they can replace the disgraced US president as a middle east peace maker. But at least the Iranians elected their chief lawmaker whereas nobody elected yours so at least Iran is slightly more democratic than the EU.

This deal is not only about military or econonic interests. It is also about trust and the way countries and their leaders interact. We will always have international relationships, and need to rely on contracts made and words given. The deal must be saved. Otherwise, any future deal with any country, Iran or other, will be so much more difficult.

A very simple logic, Trump has been talking about US first, if Trump wants to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, which means definitely American interests, not that of European. Iran nuclear deal offers Europe better security. Even though it is not perfect, it is just the beginning. Everything can improve. If we don’t start, good things would never come.

When China can emerge as the world’s second largest economy in shortly three decades, it is strange why EU is still shifting from economic take-off and insecurity threat. Europe is the source of modern civilization, source of science and technology, source of knowledge. Both Europe and China were badly torn after World War II. China was only at its starting point of building a modern state, which Europe has long been consolidated. What can I think of is that China can implement all policies uniquely on their own national interest, while Europe cannot be independent from US influence disregarding the formation of the EU. Now EU is breaking up. It is partly the consequence of the Arab Spring staged by Obama and its subsequent refugee influx, the 2008 Financial Crisis broke out from the Wall Street, which has dragged Europe into the financial crisis. Dating back to the beginning of the century, European countries had joined the US on the invasion of Iraq against protects of the international society. Being an ally of Bush’s war on terror, the US has free itself from terrorist attacks but Europe is suffering from consistent attacks…If Europe wants to stand up again stronger, a stronger union that can pursue European interest independently is essentially required.

Bódis so its ok for israel and the US to have them? what’s the alternative? Iran knows damn well they are next for “regime” change and judging by what has gone on in Syria I wouldn’t blame them for working towards being nuclear armed

Realistically, it’s not going to be possible to take away nukes from those who already have them. However, the fewer the better, I think.
Iran should spend its money on boosting businesses and the economy, not a nuclear program. They would benefit much more.

Bódis bit hard to do when the US is applying sanctions and even sanctions on countries that do business with Iran.If they were nuclear armed it would guarantee there would be none of the good old fashioned US regime change,remember its not the first time they’ve done it to Iran. In an ideal world no country would be nuclear armed,sadly that’s a long way away,if ever.

There are countries that ignore the sanctions and they could rely on internal consumption, too. The population is 80 million. >> All the more reasons to focus on economic growth, I think.

The US foreign policy is driven by the economic interests of the oligarchs that support its government. Some oligarch-interest groups compete with each other. (Imagine how the various maffias can divide up a city among themselves. These oligarch-interest groups do something similar on a global scale.)
Less belligerence would cut back on the pressure and economic growth would make foreign investors interested, so they would soon start to lobby for the end of the sanctions.

Iran was sticking scrupulously to the stipulations of the deal according to everyone involved. So far, so good, until Trump came along.
Remember what Colin Powell said about the deal? “Yes, Iran still has a pathway to nuclear weapons. But before this they were on a 6-lane highway.”
I guess they’re about to hit the freeway again after this.
You may ask why would Trump lash out against Iran which is off the path to nuclear weapons and smooching up to Kim Jong-un who is sticking to his. I can think of only two reasons:
– Obama made the Iran deal happen and everything Obama did must be undone according to Trump
– cutting off oil from Iran will cause the price of oul to rise and that will be good for Trump’s friends.
Any others that people can think of?

It’s because of the above mentioned interest groups. Trump is supported by a different one than Obama was. The interest group that supports Trump puts a higher priority on Israel’s safety. The interest group behind Obama was probably more interested in Iran’s gas fields.

Since I stopped thinking about US foreign policy as “national policy” and instead consider the interests of competing interest groups, it has started to make much more sense.

It was not a treaty to stop them getting nukes, it was only gentleman’s agreement to increase the time frame for Iran to produce nuclear weapons from 3 months to 12 months by restricting their uranium enrichment production but in May of this year Iran threatens to restart its nuclear programme ‘within five days’.

1. This would be impossible if they had followed the agreement they signed.

2. The agreement did not prohibit Iran from testing their missile delivery system which they now have, couple this with their five day threat & they could have a fully functional nuke ready to hit Madrid with a week.

Regarding point 1, that’s fair, but the US has also broken the agreement so it’s a bit moot.

Regarding point two, why didn’t they specifically request this condition while negotiations were ongoing rather than incessantly baying ‘bad deal bad deal’?

To sign an agreement only to tear it up as soon as the administration changes because it’s politically expedient is incredibly morally hazardous and fickle. It screams legal insecurity and makes it much less likely that anyone will sign such agreements with the US in the future.

I believe the US and the UK should stop interfering in Iran’s affairs. Since that country’s legit elected government was replaced with the Shah, it has lost its way and that’s why there’s a dictatorship today. Its all the US/UK’s fault.

When it is overwhelmingly a common logic and consensus that having a deal is always better than no deal. Why argue still “deal” or “no deal” on Iran Nuclear issue if EU does not want to fight a war with Iran? Let Trump fights his own war. If Trump is afraid of fighting a war in Korean Peninsula, he would not want to fight a war with Iran. It is just more irrational than Trump if EU leaders agree to fight a war with Iran.

Yes. Its in europe’s interest to demonstrate that it’s a trustworthy & reliable negotiation partner. Also, it’s in europe’s interest to keep a neutral position in the emerging shia-sunni rivalry to play one side against the other. Regardless of the sides that the world’s other major powers take.

Sorry, this question makes no sense. It’s not that Iran is trustworthy. It’s that EUROPE needs to be trustworthy. We need to demonstrate to other potential negotiators that we don’t back out of a deal just because one of the other parties decided to for their own political or geostrategic reasons. If Europe isn’t seen as being trustworthy at the negotiating table, it hurts nobody else except europe.

Also, geostrategically speaking, trustworthiness in negotiation is about how faithfully parties stick to deals. Not about how wacky their internal politics look like. Israel negotiates with countries that have openly anti-israel political factions all the time. same goes for USA and Russia. They negotiate with parties who openly have hostile factions on a routine basis. So did machiavelli during his time for that matter.

Max, you’re right, but in the meantime Iran has set a number of conditions that Europe must satisfy for them to continue with the agreement. There is no way that Europe can satisfy those conditions, so from our point of view the agreement has now been or is about to be abandoned by both the US and Iran (in that order and that is relevant). We can’t keep the deal alive when those two, particularly Iran, are walking away from it.

Failing to do so would only give Iran a new incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Aside from that, Trump’s foreign policy is already uniting Iranian society behind its theocratic regime, in detriment to those moderates elements in government and Iranian politics.

I’d also argue that Europe has more positive, not only negative interests to maintain that deal. Iran could provide an alternative source of energy and from all states in the Middle East, Iran is the only one that actually appears to have a certain degree of stability and which could help maintain order in a region that has constantly threatened European security with terrorism and illegal migration.

You are taking a preconceived idea and presenting it as a state of fact. If that would be true, then you may right, but no person who has actually studied Iranian society, history, culture or politic would agree with your hypothesis. It’s the same as for terrorism. In order to understand something complex without actually making a serious research you are merely simplifying things.

Actually, what you say about Iran is what Iranians tend to say about the Western World in general and America in particular.

Max, you’re right, but in the meantime Iran has set a number of conditions that Europe must satisfy for them to continue with the agreement. There is no way that Europe can satisfy those conditions, so from our point of view the agreement has now been or is about to be abandoned by both the US and Iran (in that order and that is relevant). We can’t keep the deal alive when those two, particularly Iran, are walking away from it.

What has changed. Can the state that nuked the Bikini Islands as testing grounds exposing the Islanders to lethal radiation and destroying their land and seas be trusted to influence any decision in Europe. Iranian oil is all that their interested in, the sanctions and weather modifications are crippling Iran and they will look for any excuse to take it over

You say that as if Dmocrats are any better??? And I don’t mean a decent person like Bernie Sanders…I mean people like Obama and Israel’s most loyal American puppet Hillary Clinton who murdered people in the 10s of 1000s. The U.S. and the power of AIPAC over both parties is the problem, naive to thing either one better than the other, at home yes, not on global stage #BDS

Yeah – at least neither of them intentionally sabotaged a trade deal at the behest of John Bolton to try and intentionally wage a war in Iran.

But regardless, that still leaves Europe role as clear. Keep the sanctions off and keep peace possible.

jthkAugust 22nd, 2018

When the US and Russia are still holding up to 7000 nuclear war head/missiles, when Trump is considering to loosen the use of nuclear weapon against enemies, when Trump is considering the production of smaller nuclear weapon, when the US army has already declared it will carry out any command on the use of nuclear weapon even from a crazy old fool like Trump, when Trump is launched attack on economies of allies and enemies indiscriminately. It is totally normal that Iran will turn to the strategy with a balance of terror if the state finds itself being abandoned by the international society of state, and becomes helpless.

You think an Islamic dictatorship will ‘open up’ because Brussels asks them to ? the only way to deal with them is by crippling their leadership, not pandering to them.

AriosSeptember 17th, 2018

well, Europe can’t save the Iranian nuclear deal even if she wants.
We live in the Era of Globalization, that means that the European companies are cooperating with one or another way with American companies and institutions, Banks, Funds, Trade, Stockmarkets etc etc
So, between the American and Iranian Market, the big European companies can’t risk losing the American Market or Funds.
Iran doesn’t need rise or oil from Europe but airplanes, trains, and cars. Products which Europe exports to the USA too…

Aris why so pessimistic? Isnt it exactly or even more the other way round? Hell..we even make deals with russia despite the political relations. Of course its the question if its worth it to risk it but with the political will it is possible.

ArisSeptember 17th, 2018

Uli the Europeans say they try to find some economic ways to trade with Iran after the American sanctions. If this happens then Europe can save the Deal.
But thinking in an economic way I don’t know how we can save the Deal. For example the Airbus company. She had a deal to sell airplanes to Iran but broke that deal because the American airlines will stop buying Airbus airplanes.
I don’t know how the European companies can find a balance between sanctions and trade. I think it is very difficult to achieve that.

Ivan how the EU is a enemy of England and England is not an enemy of EU?

MathildeSeptember 17th, 2018

Ivan perhaps England will need them for the EU if Brexit happens, eh? 😉

jthkOctober 2nd, 2018

Reply to Ivan: You appear to have confused the situation in the Middle East. Russia, EU and China are not Iran’s enemy because they have been supporting the Iran nuclear deal and have now agreed to support the deal without the US. Instead the US (wants always to overthrow the current Iran Republic and reinstate a puppet kingdom like the Pahlavi dynasty), Israel (a close ally and seen as trojan horse of the US in the Middle East) and Saudi Arabia (historical religious conflict between sunni and shia) are Iran’s enemy.

GustavSeptember 17th, 2018

Absolutely. Europe has nothing to gain from a situation where Iran is isolated and has nuclear weapons.

Get rid of the Saudi royal family, and there will be the most major reform in the war against terrorism and those funding it.
The Iran thing is ultimately a bit of a distraction for clicks from the more pressing issues right now.

For a few centuries, Europe’s strategy vis-a-vis the islamic belt has been one of permanent disruption, simply because it was easy to do so and because we weren’t limited by any moral values, the most recent examples being what we did in Libya and are doing in Syria.
But even if our amoral attitude endures, as one can expect, we’re now in the second century of a major transformation which relegates Europe to a much more humble position, in which we cease to lead the events around the globe and become led by them.
Because of that, at this point we should have already worked in the establishment of a strong network of mutually benefitial relationships with a few prominent players in our immediate surroundings. And looking at the greater ME, it doesn’t thake much effort to understand that Iran is more important than Turkey.
We failed the political integration of Europe, and now that the external pressures rise as expected we’re unable to contain the process and we’re actually caught in the first stages of what could well be the dismantlement of the EU. Allowing ourselves to give up on Iran, or even worse, allowing ourselves to be led into the participation in a military adventure in Iran, comes with a price in less than twenty years.
So yes, I think Europe should do whatever it takes, not only to save the nuclear deal but also to move much beyond that.

»I think Europe should do whatever it takes»
And if they ask to convert to their religion?

TalineSeptember 17th, 2018

Every time US gets its fingers in someone else’s dish…they ruin everything…this is of course is the plan if the banks run by the elite…instead of initiating war and using mass media…they can focus on natural resources to harvest…sooner or later..but much sooner..oil is running out…who and where will they cause war???…using various methods to create havoc on another continent…under the guise of “freedom”…a country that has the word freedom but all are prisoners in the golden cage of their politics

Taline the sad true. And the ugly thing is dispite some good relations between Trump and Putin, the US may step on the pedal, the hawks are all in place. With the nuclear agreement Obama and Europe hited the breacks, which was very advisible after Lybia and Syria.
Now that Trump is so close to Telavive, and as the lowest approval a President had, or one of the lowest, things may go very wrong

TalineSeptember 17th, 2018

António of course they may go wrong..unless as usual they reach a bargain…Trump is just a card ..marionette…unfortunately…here in Middle East..or any country that opposes the US regime..ends up in ruins..

AntónioSeptember 17th, 2018

It would be good enough if Europe didn t take part in a war against Iran. If Europe could revive the nuclear deal, it would be great. But the miracle department is close for now, at least as long as you have Trump on the White House.

Jan I imagine that an atomic bomb must be a very dangerous hardware, any mistake and BUM it will explode.
No, I have not study this subject. On the internet I found that in 2017 Iran expended 14.0 billions US dollars on military. With 1 billion = 1 Giga = 1·10^9. Turkey expended 18.2 billions US dollars. And to compare Spain had expended 15.7 billions US dollars. This is a lot of money.

TonySeptember 17th, 2018

No. It is a garbage deal. Donr on the EU side just to follow Obama and to seem relevant. And Obama did it without proper approval through congress.

It has so far. You’re trying to predict the future and that’s where the oppositions lacks gravitas.

jthkOctober 2nd, 2018

When the International Atomic Energy Agent have consistently confirmed that Iran has been following the rule of the deal, I do not see why we should believe in the US and its ally Israel. Already with the Bush administration, a highly respectable Secretary of State of the US can use washing powder to fool the whole world to justify US invasion to a sovereign state Iraq. When the current Trump administration’s honestly is seriously under question, when the promises of the administration worth nothing, when Trump can shout unshamefully in the UN that the whole world ought to support American great again, and the administration is abandoning all core values as represented by the UN, even though we know nothing on international relations, it is just a common sense that leaders of EU, Russia, China are doing the right things and representing the collective values of the world. If these leaders are support the Iran nuclear deal, I believe this is a rational choice and good for EU.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.